Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize the development and performance of a cataract surgery episode-based cost measure for the Medicare Quality Payment Program.DesignClaims-based analysis.ParticipantsMedicare clinicians with cataract surgery claims between June 1, 2016, and May 31, 2017.MethodsWe limited the analysis to claims with procedure code 66984 (routine cataract surgery), excluding cases with relevant ocular comorbidities. We divided episodes into subgroups by surgery location (Ambulatory Surgery Center [ASC] or Hospital Outpatient Department [HOPD]) and laterality (bilateral when surgeries were within 30 days apart). For the episode-based cost measure, we calculated costs occurring between 60 days before surgery and 90 days after surgery, limited to services identified by an expert committee as related to cataract surgery and under the influence of the cataract surgeon. We attributed costs to the clinician submitting the cataract surgery claim, categorized costs into clinical themes, and calculated episode cost distribution, reliability in detecting clinician-dependent cost variation, and costs with versus without complications. We compared episode-based cost scores with hypothetical "nonselective" cost scores (total Medicare beneficiary costs between 60 days before surgery and 90 days after surgery).Main outcome measuresEpisode costs with and without complications, clinician-dependent variation (proportion of total cost variance), and proportion of costs from cataract surgery-related clinical themes.ResultsWe identified 583 356 cataract surgery episodes attributed to 10 790 clinicians and 8189 with ≥ 10 episodes during the measurement period. Most surgeries were performed in an ASC (71%) and unilateral (66%). The mean episode cost was $2876. The HOPD surgeries had higher costs; geography and episodes per clinician did not substantially affect costs. The proportion of cost variation from clinician-dependent factors was higher in episode-based compared with nonselective cost measures (94% vs. 39%), and cataract surgery-related clinical themes represented a higher proportion of total costs for episode-based measures. Episodes with complications had higher costs than episodes without complications ($3738 vs. $2276).ConclusionsThe cataract surgery episode-based cost measure performs better than a comparable nonselective measure based on cost distribution, clinician-dependent variance, association with cataract surgery-related clinical themes, and quality alignment (higher costs in episodes with complications). Cost measure maintenance and refinement will be important to maintain clinical validity and reliability.Financial disclosuresProprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Project description:ImportanceTo control spending, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reduced Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) payments for noninvasive cardiac tests (NCTs) performed in provider-based office settings (ambulatory offices not administratively affiliated with hospitals) starting in 2005. Contemporaneously, payments for hospital-based outpatient testing increased. The association between differential payments by site and test location is unknown.ObjectivesTo quantify trends in differential Medicare FFS payments for NCTs performed in hospital-based and provider-based settings, determine the association between the hospital-based outpatient testing to provider-based office testing payment ratio and the proportion of hospital-based NCTs, and to examine trends in test location between Medicare FFS and 3 Medicare Advantage health maintenance organizations for which Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services payments do not depend on testing location.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational claims-based study used Medicare FFS claims from 1999 to 2015 (5% random sample) and Medicare Advantage claims from 3 large health maintenance organizations (2005-2015) among Medicare FFS beneficiaries aged 65 years or older and a health maintenance organization control group. Statistical analysis was performed from May 1, 2017, to July 15, 2019.ExposuresThe weighted mean payment ratio of Medicare FFS hospital-based outpatient testing to provider-based office testing for outpatient NCTs.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of outpatient NCTs performed in the hospital-based setting and Medicare FFS costs.ResultsThe data included a mean of 1.72 million patient-years annually in Medicare FFS (mean age, 75.2 years; 57.3% female in 2015) and a mean of 142 230 patient-years annually in the managed care control group (mean age, 74.8 years; 56.2% female in 2015). The Medicare payment ratio of FFS hospital-based outpatient testing to provider-based office testing increased from 1.05 in 2005 to 2.32 in 2015. The FFS hospital-based outpatient testing proportion increased from 21.1% in 2008 to 43.2% in 2015 and was correlated with the payment ratio (correlation coefficient with a 1-year lag, 0.767; P < .001). In contrast, the hospital-based outpatient testing proportion for the control group declined from 16.6% in 2008 to 15.2% in 2015 (correlation coefficient, -0.024, P = .95). The estimated extra costs owing to tests shifting to the hospital-based outpatient setting in the Medicare FFS group was $661 million in 2015, including $161 million in patient out-of-pocket costs.Conclusions and relevanceIn settings in which reimbursement depends on test location, increasing hospital-based payments correlated with greater proportions of outpatient NCTs performed in the hospital-based outpatient setting. Site-neutral payments may offer an incentive for testing to be performed in the more efficient location.

Project description:The objective of this study was to evaluate how much variation in postacute care (PAC) spending after traumatic hip fracture exists between hospitals, and to what degree this variation is explained by patient factors, hospital factors, PAC setting, and PAC intensity.BackgroundTraumatic hip fracture is a common and costly event. This is particularly relevant given our aging population and that a substantial proportion of these patients are discharged to PAC settings.MethodsIt is a cross-sectional retrospective study. In a retrospective review using Medicare claims data between 2014 and 2019, we identified PAC payments within 90 days of hospitalization discharges and grouped hospitals into quintiles of PAC spending. The degree of variation present in PAC spending across hospital quintiles was evaluated after accounting for patient case-mix factors and hospital characteristics using multivariable regression models, adjusting for PAC setting choice by fixing the proportion of PAC discharge disposition across hospital quintiles, and adjusting for PAC intensity by fixing the amount of PAC spending across hospital quintiles. The study pool included 125,745 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent operative management for traumatic hip fracture in 2078 hospitals. The primary outcome was PAC spending within 90 days of discharge following hospitalization for traumatic hip fracture.ResultsMean PAC spending varied widely between top versus bottom spending hospital quintiles ($31,831 vs $17,681). After price standardization, the difference between top versus bottom spending hospital quintiles was $8,964. Variation between hospitals decreased substantially after adjustment for PAC setting ($25,392 vs $21,274) or for PAC intensity ($25,082 vs $21,292) with little variation explained by patient or hospital factors.ConclusionsThere was significant variation in PAC payments after a traumatic hip fracture between the highest- and lowest-spending hospital quintiles. Most of this variation was explained by choice of PAC discharge setting and intensity of PAC spending, not patient or hospital characteristics. These findings suggest potential systems-level inefficiencies that can be targeted for intervention to improve the appropriateness and value of healthcare spending.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare began paying for medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) that dispense methadone and other MOUD in January 2020. There has been little research describing the response to this payment change and whether it resulted in more patients receiving MOUD or just a shift in who pays for this care.ObjectiveTo describe how many and which Medicare beneficiaries receive care from OTPs and how this compares to those receiving MOUD in other settings.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included all patients receiving MOUD care identified in 2019-2022 100% US Medicare Parts B and D claims. Patients receiving care in an OTP who were dually insured with Medicare and Medicaid in the 2019-2020 Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System were also included.ExposureReceiving MOUD care in an OTP.Main outcomes and measuresComparisons of 2022 beneficiaries treated in OTPs vs other non-OTP settings in 2022.ResultsThe share of Medicare beneficiaries treated by OTPs rose steadily from 4 per 10 000 (14 160 beneficiaries) in January 2020 to 7 per 10 000 (25 596 beneficiaries) in August 2020, then plateaued through December 2022; of 38 870 patients (23% ≥66 years; 35% female) treated at an OTP in 2022, 96% received methadone. Patients in OTPs, compared to those receiving MOUD in other settings, were more likely be 65 years and younger (65% vs 62%; P < .001), less likely to be White (72% vs 82%; P < .001), and more likely to be an urban resident (86% vs 74%; P < .001). When Medicare OTP coverage began, there was no associated drop in the number of dually insured patients with Medicaid with an OTP claim. Of the 1854 OTPs, 1115 (60%) billed Medicare in 2022, with the share billing Medicare ranging from 13% to 100% across states.Conclusions and relevanceThis study showed that since the initiation of Medicare OTP coverage in 2020, there has been a rapid increase in the number of Medicare beneficiaries with claims for OTP services for MOUD, and most OTPs have begun billing Medicare. Patients in OTPs were more likely to be urban residents and members of racial or ethnic minority groups than the patients receiving other forms of MOUD.

Project description:ImportancePredicting payments for particular conditions or populations is essential for research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) models often group codes into disease categories, but using single, rather than grouped, diagnostic codes and leveraging present on admission (POA) codes may enhance these models.ObjectiveTo determine whether changes to the candidate variables in CMS models would improve risk models predicting patient total payment within 30 days of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness research study used data from Medicare fee-for-service hospitalizations for AMI, HF, and pneumonia at acute care hospitals from July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015. Payments across multiple care settings, services, and supplies were included and adjusted for geographic and policy variations, corrected for inflation, and winsorized. The same data source was used but varied for the candidate variables and their selection, and the method used by CMS for public reporting that used grouped codes was compared with variations that used POA codes and single diagnostic codes. Combinations of use of POA codes, separation of index admission diagnoses from those in the previous 12 months, and use of individual International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes instead of grouped diagnostic categories were tested. Data analysis was performed from December 4, 2017, to June 10, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe models' goodness of fit was compared using root mean square error (RMSE) and the McFadden pseudo R2.ResultsAmong the 1 943 049 total hospitalizations of the study participants, 343 116 admissions were for AMI (52.5% male; 37.4% aged ≤74 years), 677 044 for HF (45.5% male; 25.9% aged ≤74 years), and 922 889 for pneumonia (46.4% male; 28.2% aged ≤74 years). The mean (SD) 30-day payment was $23 103 ($18 221) for AMI, $16 365 ($12 527) for HF, and $17 097 ($12 087) for pneumonia. Each incremental model change improved the pseudo R2 and RMSE. Incorporating all 3 changes improved the pseudo R2 of the patient-level models from 0.077 to 0.129 for AMI, from 0.042 to 0.129 for HF, and from 0.114 to 0.237 for pneumonia. Parallel improvements in RMSE were found for all 3 conditions.Conclusions and relevanceLeveraging POA codes, separating index from previous diagnoses, and using single diagnostic codes improved payment models. Better models can potentially improve research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs.

Project description:ImportanceVarious policy proposals would reduce federal payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. However, it is unclear whether payment reductions would compromise beneficiary access to the MA program.ObjectiveTo quantify the association between MA payment reductions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and MA enrollment growth.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study examined the MA market before and after the ACA, which mandated cuts to MA benchmark payment rates. Using 2008 to 2019 county-level enrollment and payment data, a difference-in-differences analysis was conducted comparing MA enrollment changes between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark reductions, before vs after the ACA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the MA enrollment rate, defined as the proportion of a county's Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA. A secondary analysis examined MA plan payments per member per month.ResultsAmong 3138 counties with 37 639 county-year observations, ACA-induced benchmark cuts were sizeable and varied, ranging from 0% to 42.9% (mean [SD], 5.9% [6.6%]). Counties with benchmark cuts above the 75th percentile had population-weighted average benchmark cuts of 14.9% compared with 4.4% in other counties. In the 8 years following the ACA, there was no differential change in MA enrollment between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark cuts (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.02 [95% CI, -1.18 to 1.21] percentage points; P = .98). Plan payments differentially fell in counties with larger benchmark cuts by $78.35 (95% CI, $62.21-$94.48) per member per month (P < .001).Conclusion and relevanceThis cohort study found no evidence that the MA benchmark and ensuing payment cuts imposed by the ACA were associated with reduced MA enrollment, compromising access to MA. This evidence can inform ongoing policy debates regarding the growth of MA, concerns about excess payments to MA plans, and proposed Medicare reforms, including further reductions in MA payments.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study examines the relationship between evidence-based appropriateness criteria for neurologic imaging procedures and Medicare payment determinations. The primary research question is whether Medicare is more likely to pay for imaging procedures as the level of appropriateness increases.Data sourcesThe American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) for neurological imaging, ICD-9-CM codes, CPT codes, and payment determinations by the Medicare Part B carrier for Florida and Connecticut.Study designCross-sectional study of appropriateness criteria and Medicare Part B payment policy for neurological imaging. In addition to descriptive and bivariate statistics, multivariate logistic regression on payment determination (yes or no) was performed.Data collection methodsThe American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) documents specific to neurological imaging, ICD-9-CM codes, and CPT codes were used to create 2,510 medical condition/imaging procedure combinations, with associated appropriateness scores (coded as low/middle/high).Principal findingsAs the level of appropriateness increased, more medical condition/imaging procedure combinations were payable (low = 61 percent, middle = 70 percent, and high = 74 percent). Logistic regression indicated that the odds of a medical condition/imaging procedure combination with a middle level of appropriateness being payable was 48 percent higher than for an otherwise similar combination with a low appropriateness score (95 percent CI on odds ratio=1.19-1.84). The odds ratio for being payable between high and low levels of appropriateness was 2.25 (95 percent CI: 1.66-3.04).ConclusionsMedicare could improve its payment determinations by taking advantage of existing clinical guidelines, appropriateness criteria, and other authoritative resources for evidence-based practice. Such an approach would give providers a financial incentive that is aligned with best-practice medicine. In particular, Medicare should review and update its payment policies to reflect current information on the appropriateness of alternative imaging procedures for the same medical condition.

Dataset Information

Introduction, Cancellation, and Future Promise of Medicare Cardiac Episode Payment Models.

Publications

Introduction, Cancellation, and Future Promise of Medicare Cardiac Episode Payment Models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets